Who Is Losing Legitimacy Over Syria?

American policy toward Syria is increasingly inconsistent and unintelligible.

On Saturday, the Assad regime murdered another thirty-two peaceful protesters. What was the secretary of state’s reaction? She was in Istanbul, where some Syrian opposition leaders are located, but she did not meet with them—nor it seemed did she dispatch any of her aides to do so. Instead, she advised them to negotiate with the Assad government. The Washington Post tells the story:

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was meeting with Turkish officials a few miles away, a day after she offered formal U.S. recognition to the Libyan rebel Transitional National Council, also while in Istanbul.

“But she made no effort to meet with the Syrian opposition there, despite hopes expressed before the conference by some opposition figures that she would. Instead, she offered only lukewarm support for the Syrian gathering and made it clear that the United States hopes the protest movement will engage in dialogue with the Syrian government, something most opposition groups reject.

“‘We’re encouraged by what we see the Syrian people are doing for themselves. This is not anything the United States or any other country is doing,’ she said after talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. ‘It’s what the Syrian people are doing, trying to form an opposition that can provide a pathway, hopefully in peaceful cooperation with the government, to a better future.’”

This statement came just days after she said the regime had “lost legitimacy,” a bizarre phrase to use regarding a government that never had any. But that phrase was regarded as a toughening of the U.S. position, so what explains her advice to people being shot dead in the street that they “cooperate” with the man shooting them?

That twenty-three of the thirthy-two people killed by the regime on Saturday were in Damascus shows that the demonstrations have reached the capital and continue to grow. The great scholar Fouad Ajami recently said that aspects of the Arab Spring are well described as a “prison break” by an entire population, and certainly that term fits for Syria. I understand the Administration’s desire not to urge people into the streets, lest there be a slaughter that we cannot halt or avert. But no one is suggesting that the president call for a mass uprising. U.S. policy needs only to show consistency and moral clarity.

I shudder to think how a Syrian protester must view the United States when he is risking his life and the secretary of state is still dreaming of “peaceful cooperation” from the government shooting him and his fellow demonstrators dead in the streets day after day. Mrs. Clinton’s remark about Assad’s loss of legitimacy was, we are told, unscripted. “The administration’s policy toward the Syrian autocrat has lately been shaped more by diplomatic improvisation than methodical planning within the White House,” the Washington Post reported.

This may explain why the secretary oscillates between tougher and weaker rhetoric and positions, but it is a terrible indictment of the Obama Administration foreign policy team that it cannot get its act together after thirty months in power. This Administration’s Syria policy has now moved from “improvisation” to incoherence.

Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.

I agree wth you that US must make a clear choice.
We ask the US and its allies to demand a UN resolution that condemns the Assad regime for the use of violence against its people, establishes a committee to investigate the siege and blockade of towns, torturing and killings of civilians. We ask the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold hearings on Syria and invite representatives of the opposition and the US State department to explain US passive attitude toward the Syrian regime.

SDC appeals to the international community to declare Syrian regime as illegitimate regime and support the Syrian revolution and democratic groups working inside Syria.
Turning Syria into a federal state, with a democratic system to structure the federal government and provincial governments, will start a new era in which the Syrian people and neighboring countries will enjoy freedom, peace, security and stability.

Posted by Dean A. SmallwoodJuly 19, 2011 at 6:28 am

These silly , inexplicable , boiler-plate statements coming from the Obama Administrationh via Sectretary Clinton would be comic non-sequiturs were the situation not so tragic . If , through some miracle , this situation is resolved in favor of the opposition it will happen , no thanks , to the United States .

Posted by canadiansyrianJuly 23, 2011 at 10:55 pm

Agree 100%.
how could AL CAPON reforms himself and his thugs.
Assad`s Alawi minority is going to do and say anything to stay in power.
he will keep making offers people and the west CAN`T REFUSE.
a women in the city of HOMS was walking in the funral of her two sons -who were killed by Alawi armd gangs- got shot and later died.
using TANKS to fire shells on the Sunni people.Assad`s Alawi brutality continues…and the world is watchin..
thanks mr Abrams for your article.

Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing on your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.